Google Fiber isn't the sucker punch we need it to be

It'll take a lot more than gigabit connections in two cities for cable providers to really start worrying.

By Apr 10, 2013 4:40PM
By Mike Schuster

My wife and I recently moved from the New York metro area to buy a home in a sleepy Connecticut town. There wasn't much arm-twisting required to get us to trade the sound of sirens for that of chirping birds, parking tickets for a driveway, or the stench of unidentifiable food wafting into our apartment for the faint smell of wood burning in nearby fireplaces. But what we were going to miss, and actually had  taken into account before the move, was the likely loss of Verizon (VZ) FiOS.

After our apartment building had severed its cable partnership with Broadstar Communications -- which easily possesses the most infuriating customer service outside of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey -- we decided to sign up for one of the new FiOS hookups then propagating our building. The reliable TV signal and fast Internet speeds, impervious to peak hours, were features we never experienced in our dark years dealing with Cablevision (CVC) and Time Warner Cable (TWC).
So when we decided to wash the subway stench from our clothes and head to the country, we actually researched any prospective town to see if it had FiOS. Unfortunately, the quainter the town, the less likely it had it. We're a Charter Communications (CHTR) family now, and thankfully it isn't too terrible.

But that palpable fear of moving to a town that's exclusive to Comcast (CMCSA) or AT&T (T) -- two very highly derided cable providers, and for good reason -- is a relatively new phenomenon, flourishing around the time Apple (AAPL) iPhone users were finally able to choose between Verizon, Sprint (S), and AT&T. Aside from FiOS, there hasn't really been a cable provider "savior" to rescue denizens from their towns' cable stranglehold, but we definitely know which ones are the worst. (Hint: They're the ones that cap or throttle data.) Ranked on a graph, you only have a couple "Slightly Above Average" -- and then a huge drop down the Y-axis into the vast pool of "Satan's Hellspawn."

Which is why Google (GOOG) Fiber might as well be walking on water.

Image: Global communication © Maciej Frolow, Brand X, Getty ImagesThis week, Google announced it has selected Austin as the next extremely lucky recipient of its feverishly coveted cable service, currently available only in Kansas City. Not only does it provide TV service, a gigabit connection will only cost you $70 a month. (Comparatively, Time Warner Cable will graciously bestow 50 megabits to subscribers for $79 a month, not including the $20 installation fee, of course.) Google's cable service is widely regarded as that veritable "savior" that will free us from cable monopolies and force greedy telecoms to lower their rates, boost their speeds, and finally build up their infrastructures to remain not only competitive, but also relevant.

Unfortunately for consumers-- very unfortunately -- that doesn't look to be the case for quite a while.

While Austin and Kansas City will benefit from the increased competition -- which actually prompted Time Warner Cable to literally knock on people's doors begging them not to switch -- the rest of the US and its 315 million citizens are still stuck with limited options. In many cases, zero. As we eagerly await Google Fiber's roll-out to extend onto our turf, telcos are still sitting pretty with their uncompetitive rates and speeds.

And as Sanford Bernstein senior analyst Carlos Kirjner wrote, the company could spend $11 billion on hookups and still only reach roughly 20 million homes or 15% of the country. Anything outside those subscribers would have "limited impact."

"We remain skeptical that Google will find a scalable and economically feasible model to extend its build-out to a large portion of the US, as costs would be substantial, regulatory, and competitive barriers material," Kirjner wrote in a research note.

It's wishful thinking to expect Google Fiber or live TV streaming service Aereo (IACI) to, in a matter of months, completely upend decades of unregulated growth and hundreds of billions in government lobbying. Right now, the two upstarts are certainly on the telcoms' radar, but they're pesky mosquitoes compared to the lumbering behemoth of cable providers.

Let's just hope in the coming years that one of them carries a debilitating case of malaria.

More from Minyanville 
Apr 10, 2013 8:21PM
Whichever cable or satellite provider first decides to offer ala carte programming choices rather than forcing people to sign up for a "tier" of channels that they don't watch will gain massive market share from the others. The entire business is a corrupt localized monopoly which deserves to be flushed along with most of the crap on TV today.
Apr 11, 2013 12:57PM

wonder what control of 2.5GHz could do to speed up this rollout...

Apr 11, 2013 10:35AM

Time Warner is the only "high speed" offering in my building (it's that or dial-up).  My first impression of them was when they came to install everything - the guy showed up two hours late (as in after the 4 hour window he was supposed to show up) and the first thing he did was break a lamp.


At my old place I had Fios - god do I miss it, even if it was expensive.

Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?


Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.


StockScouter rates stocks from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, using a system of advanced mathematics to determine a stock's expected risk and return. Ratings are displayed on a bell curve, meaning there will be fewer ratings of 1 and 10 and far more of 4 through 7.

123 rated 1
262 rated 2
480 rated 3
651 rated 4
649 rated 5
629 rated 6
616 rated 7
496 rated 8
346 rated 9
111 rated 10

Top Picks

TAT&T Inc9



Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.

Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.

Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.